As I play the game - I became more accurate, neat and careful. I even do some calculations, but the game gives practically all information needed, so calculation is very rare needed.First I play the game fast and agressive - but that's not type of strategy to play the game. You need to be, as I said earlier, more neat and carefull and make your every move with caution.Lots of races, classes and bonuses gives a game a freedom of choice.All game areas (except special puzzles) can be handeled with individual approach - and that's a freedom a game gives to a player.As for now I more think that there is no need of death confirmation, but I was very very very angry about absence of this feature when I began playing.So - all comes with gaming experience, as you get closer acquainted with the gameBut still Death Confirmation would be a nice feature for the beginners

Just a quick note, Lujo likes to think that he somehow speaks for us developers or that his understanding of the game is superior. Both are false assumptions and his posts should be read with that in mind

Robotrek1000 wrote:As I play the game - I became more accurate, neat and careful. I even do some calculations, but the game gives practically all information needed, so calculation is very rare needed.First I play the game fast and agressive - but that's not type of strategy to play the game. You need to be, as I said earlier, more neat and carefull and make your every move with caution.Lots of races, classes and bonuses gives a game a freedom of choice.All game areas (except special puzzles) can be handeled with individual approach - and that's a freedom a game gives to a player.As for now I more think that there is no need of death confirmation, but I was very very very angry about absence of this feature when I began playing.So - all comes with gaming experience, as you get closer acquainted with the gameBut still Death Confirmation would be a nice feature for the beginners

I'm glad you're starting to see what Desktop Dungeons play is actually all about I think your last point isn't well considered though: Beginner players who keep dying need that disappointment to start playing the game differently. If they never died, never lost their dungeon progress suddenly, why would they learn?

Hi, just wanted to jump in and beat this dead horse too. I'm hoping to beat it back to life.

I, for one, have been playing the beta became available and I would still really like to see a death confirmation. I want a death confirmation despite the fact that even from the beginning I've had very few unintentional deaths.

The reason I want a death confirmation is because, among other things, unintentional deaths, prevent me from learning something. That is, they don't tell you where you might have gone wrong because the death wasn't part of your strategy, it was just a misclick, lack of paying attention, or, more recently, a UI bug. When you're forced to retire or kill yourself, then you know that you made a mistake. But when you unintentionally die from a predictable death, the only lesson you learn is, "Double-check the DEATH message," which is pretty much redundant after your first such death.

In short, players learn when they retire, not when they die; lack of death confirmation actually ruins learning opportunities. If you want to force people to die, take away the retire option and add a death confirmation.

Furthermore, "Double-check the DEATH message" is a lesson that undermines the "Fight your way through fantasy dungeons in 10 minutes or less" concept of the game, because it adds overhead to almost every move in the game. Finally it's a double-whammy because the lack of a death confirmation both lengthens a dungeon time while occasionally making you accidentally lose a whole dungeon run. Losing 10 minutes of your time is not as frustrating as losing 20 minutes. So the "lesson" you learn from lack of death confirmation actually makes you play in a way that makes lack of death confirmation more punishing.

Were you expecting a coherent message? Alweth does not deal with such trifles. Ignore him or watch the thread get locked!

Alweth wrote:The reason I want a death confirmation is because, among other things, unintentional deaths, prevent me from learning something. That is, they don't tell you where you might have gone wrong because the death wasn't part of your strategy, it was just a misclick, lack of paying attention, or, more recently, a UI bug.

Only in the case of the UI bug is it not 100% your fault. If you don't choose to take a lesson from that, that is also 100% your fault. Even if you prep Patches and you level up and he teleports you into an unwinnable situation, it was still your choice to prep him. You can't even acquire him any other way.

When you're forced to retire or kill yourself, then you know that you made a mistake. But when you unintentionally die from a predictable death, the only lesson you learn is, "Double-check the DEATH message," which is pretty much redundant after your first such death.

Obviously not, if you keep doing it.

In short, players learn when they retire, not when they die; lack of death confirmation actually ruins learning opportunities. If you want to force people to die, take away the retire option and add a death confirmation.

Except there's immense gaps of difference in what happens between retiring and dying, and in this game, dying is almost always 100% your fault. Somewhere along the line, you made a bad decision and paid for it. Maybe that being too much like the real world makes you uncomfortable, and that's fine. Stepping out of the realm of pure logic here a moment, I'll add that I personally find it refreshing when a game refuses to be taken lightly, demands attention, and punishes me for not taking it seriously.

Furthermore, "Double-check the DEATH message" is a lesson that undermines the "Fight your way through fantasy dungeons in 10 minutes or less" concept of the game, because it adds overhead to almost every move in the game.

If you have to double check "almost every move in the game" for the DEATH message, you're doing something wrong. Either you're grossly exaggerating, paying little to no attention to the combat predicting yellow lines, not learning from mistakes, or clicking around nearly at random.

Finally it's a double-whammy because the lack of a death confirmation both lengthens a dungeon time while occasionally making you accidentally lose a whole dungeon run. Losing 10 minutes of your time is not as frustrating as losing 20 minutes. So the "lesson" you learn from lack of death confirmation actually makes you play in a way that makes lack of death confirmation more punishing.

So what you're saying is that frustration is more frustrating when you know deep down it came from you doing something you know full well you shouldn't have? Well good! Then maybe the lesson will be learned.

I'm really trying to let this topic drop, but I feel impelled to reply when the death-confirmation-supporters are stating their opinions as if they were cold, hard facts and beyond questioning. They're not. They're opinions. They've all been stated and shot down before. I am fairly sure it is actually linguistically impossible (at least in English) to make any argument for them which hasn't been made before.

I mean, I could see being frustrated because you open up a Vicious dungeon and are immediately met with two level three + monsters with no resources to move around or eliminate them, having paid 200+ gold in preps, and being forced to immediately flee for whatever amount you could get selling some of those preps back, because that was completely beyond your control and you got screwed. I can't fathom that dozens of people can get themselves worked up because the devs refuse to protect them from stuff that's their own fault though. I don't get that mentality at all.

Alweth wrote:The reason I want a death confirmation is because, among other things, unintentional deaths, prevent me from learning something. That is, they don't tell you where you might have gone wrong because the death wasn't part of your strategy, it was just a misclick, lack of paying attention, or, more recently, a UI bug.

Only in the case of the UI bug is it not 100% your fault. If you don't choose to take a lesson from that, that is also 100% your fault.

You're completely missing the point. I don't think anybody is suggesting that misclicks and not paying close attention is the games fault. What people are saying is that they don't want to "learn" the "lessons", (ie. adopt the behavior) "Don't play this game except in a distraction-free environment," "Always check the DEATH message," etc., because they're not fun. Just because it's avoidable doesn't mean it's fun or good game design. When people want to test their skill at navigating a UI they play real-time games. People play games like Desktop Dungeons because they want to make interesting tactical decisions, and there is nothing interesting about the decision, "Should I attack the guy that will certainly kill me?" The answer is always no. (Unless you've stopped trying to win.)

Good UI design says, if your UI is telling you that the user is trying to do something that is they know is the wrong thing to do 100% of the time, you at least double-check that that's really what they want to do. Even chessdoesn't allow you to check yourself.

Furthermore, you're conveniently ignoring the bug. Even if there weren't such a bug, good UI design proactively guards against such bugs from being able to kill you. That's one of the reasons the above UI design rule is important.

Wargasm wrote:

When you're forced to retire or kill yourself, then you know that you made a mistake. But when you unintentionally die from a predictable death, the only lesson you learn is, "Double-check the DEATH message," which is pretty much redundant after your first such death.

Obviously not, if you keep doing it.

Since I started playing again with the release, in the 60+ dungeon runs I've done, I've died unintentionally exactly three times and two of them were because of the UI clicking bug. Yet it doesn't matter. It's the fact that that kind of death can happen that annoys me because it makes me have to play the game a way I don't find as fun. I don't want to always have to be thinking about the obvious.

Wargasm wrote:

In short, players learn when they retire, not when they die; lack of death confirmation actually ruins learning opportunities. If you want to force people to die, take away the retire option and add a death confirmation.

Except there's immense gaps of difference in what happens between retiring and dying, and in this game, dying is almost always 100% your fault. Somewhere along the line, you made a bad decision and paid for it.

Furthermore, "Double-check the DEATH message" is a lesson that undermines the "Fight your way through fantasy dungeons in 10 minutes or less" concept of the game, because it adds overhead to almost every move in the game.

If you have to double check "almost every move in the game" for the DEATH message, you're doing something wrong. Either you're grossly exaggerating, paying little to no attention to the combat predicting yellow lines, not learning from mistakes, or clicking around nearly at random.

Obviously, at the beginning of a run, it doesn't make as much sense to be so careful. But no matter how good you are at this game, it's always possible that you misread something, temporarily forgot something, miscounted something, etc. The combat prediction is good because it prevents the player from having to double-check their calculations to make sure that what they think is going to happen is actually going to happen. However, there are many situations where the player is confident enough of the outcome that they don't feel they even need to check the combat prediction. This is a good thing, and for experienced players they're right almost every time. Nevertheless, because of possible little mistakes like accidentally clicking a different enemy than you thought you were, etc., at the end the player should double-check it because it's not worth wasting 10-15 minutes over. However, it would be better if they could just rely on their experience and not sweat the 1% corner-case.

Wargasm wrote:

Finally it's a double-whammy because the lack of a death confirmation both lengthens a dungeon time while occasionally making you accidentally lose a whole dungeon run. Losing 10 minutes of your time is not as frustrating as losing 20 minutes. So the "lesson" you learn from lack of death confirmation actually makes you play in a way that makes lack of death confirmation more punishing.

So what you're saying is that frustration is more frustrating when you know deep down it came from you doing something you know full well you shouldn't have? Well good! Then maybe the lesson will be learned.

No.

Wargasm wrote:I'm really trying to let this topic drop, but I feel impelled to reply when the death-confirmation-supporters are stating their opinions as if they were cold, hard facts and beyond questioning. They're not. They're opinions.

You know that there's more possibilities than, indisputable fact, and pure opinion, right?

Wargasm wrote:I mean, I could see being frustrated because you open up a Vicious dungeon and are immediately met with two level three + monsters with no resources to move around or eliminate them, having paid 200+ gold in preps, and being forced to immediately flee for whatever amount you could get selling some of those preps back, because that was completely beyond your control and you got screwed. I can't fathom that dozens of people can get themselves worked up because the devs refuse to protect them from stuff that's their own fault though. I don't get that mentality at all.

By this reasoning, killing the player whenever he pressed a keyboard key would be a perfectly fine design decision because, "Hey, it's your own fault." Do you see how completely insufficient this argument is?

Were you expecting a coherent message? Alweth does not deal with such trifles. Ignore him or watch the thread get locked!

All else I can really think to add here is Feature Request: In the same manner that 'drag mode' can be disabled, allow the player to set either 'attack mode' or 'select mode' off. As it is now with both enabled, being able to right click to select an enemy doesn't do much good when you still need to left click to move and could theoretically misclick and die at that point - I've not had it happen that way to me yet, but I've come close with all the barbing bushes in Ick Swamp.

Alweth wrote:You're completely missing the point. I don't think anybody is suggesting that misclicks and not paying close attention is the games fault. What people are saying is that they don't want to "learn" the "lessons", (ie. adopt the behavior) "Don't play this game except in a distraction-free environment," "Always check the DEATH message," etc., because they're not fun. Just because it's avoidable doesn't mean it's fun or good game design. When people want to test their skill at navigating a UI they play real-time games. People play games like Desktop Dungeons because they want to make interesting tactical decisions, and there is nothing interesting about the decision, "Should I attack the guy that will certainly kill me?" The answer is always no. (Unless you've stopped trying to win.)

So what you're telling me is that, if you a play a game and it is teaching you things you don't want to learn, asking you to play in ways you don't want to play, or doesn't let you avoid things you don't want to avoid, your reaction isn't "maybe this game isn't for me" but "I think the entire game should be changed to suit me, personally?"

If that's your point, then I want to completely miss it. If that's not your point, then I'm afraid you're not communicating it effectively.

Good UI design says, if your UI is telling you that the user is trying to do something that is they know is the wrong thing to do 100% of the time, you at least double-check that that's really what they want to do. Even chessdoesn't allow you to check yourself.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas on good UI design from, but I've been working in the gaming industry twenty years and perhaps it's because of the genres of the games I've tested for or worked with, or the philosophies of the companies I've worked for, but I have never heard a dev team go "You know, I really think we need two layers of protection from people taking suicidal actions." I've only even seen one company in twenty years (other than QCF) even seriously entertain the idea at some point. In pretty much any game that isn't an sports game which is 80% cloned from year to year, the dev team put a lot of work into the game and they take it seriously and they probably would appreciate you taking it seriously too.

Furthermore, you're conveniently ignoring the bug. Even if there weren't such a bug, good UI design proactively guards against such bugs from being able to kill you. That's one of the reasons the above UI design rule is important.

No, I'm not. You're conveniently ignoring me. I specifically said in every case OTHER THAN THE UI BUG (there, all caps, can you read it now?), your deaths are almost always 100% your fault. Inattention is your fault. Careless clicking is your fault. It happens to me too. When it does, it's my fault.

Since I started playing again with the release, in the 60+ dungeon runs I've done, I've died unintentionally exactly three times and two of them were because of the UI clicking bug. Yet it doesn't matter. It's the fact that that kind of death can happen that annoys me because it makes me have to play the game a way I don't find as fun. I don't want to always have to be thinking about the obvious.

As I said before, and I'm not trying to chase you off or anything, but it's possible the game is Not For You, then. I've played and even worked on games I wanted to like really hard but in the end I just wasn't capable of playing them well in a way I enjoyed. I had to move on. The Orion series was that for me, so hardcore. I wanted to like it so hard, I checked fansites, strategy guides, what have you, but at the end of the day there was just too much micromanagement for my tastes and I had to give it up.

If you're going to argue that dying and retiring are the same, even when the game treats them entirely differently in terms of what you walk away with, that's an argument you're going to have with yourself. I won't be involved.

Obviously, at the beginning of a run, it doesn't make as much sense to be so careful.

We have different definitions of the term "obviously." I'm much more careful at the beginning. That's when I'm at my weakest. This might be part of your problem here.

But no matter how good you are at this game, it's always possible that you misread something, temporarily forgot something, miscounted something, etc.

Then that's my fault and I accept that and its consequences. Why are you struggling so much to avoid being accountable for your own actions?

The combat prediction is good because it prevents the player from having to double-check their calculations to make sure that what they think is going to happen is actually going to happen. However, there are many situations where the player is confident enough of the outcome that they don't feel they even need to check the combat prediction.

Then that's their fault and they get what they deserve.

This is a good thing,

Again, that's a matter on which we disagree.

and for experienced players they're right almost every time.

This is called "learning" and it's very probably the most awesome thing in the world.

Nevertheless, because of possible little mistakes like accidentally clicking a different enemy than you thought you were,

That's 100% pure carelessness and if you're apt to do that, that's exactly what the right click/click and drag menus are for. If you don't use them, that's also your fault.

etc., at the end the player should double-check it because it's not worth wasting 10-15 minutes over. However, it would be better if they could just rely on their experience and not sweat the 1% corner-case.

If it takes you 10-15 minutes during a normal run - or probably any run - to tell the difference between yellowish "SAFE" and bright red "DEATH" then I think you've got bigger problems than the game.

You know that there's more possibilities than, indisputable fact, and pure opinion, right?

Yes, and when one of them enters the discussion and becomes a relevant topic, I'll acknowledge it. Was there a reason you brought this up, or is it merely a non-sequitur?

By this reasoning, killing the player whenever he pressed a keyboard key would be a perfectly fine design decision because, "Hey, it's your own fault." Do you see how completely insufficient this argument is?

Actually, I've known a game to do pretty close to exactly that. It's called "I Wanna Be the Guy." It has quite a fan base, in fact. It punishes you for making all kinds of intuitive decisions, but you can learn your way through it, one death at a time, and there are certain kinds of people who enjoy that.

But yes, when you take a comment and drag it not only completely out of its own context, but any context at all, it becomes insufficient. You could say that about anything that's ever been said or will be said, ever. What exactly were you trying to prove? If you have an actual point based on things which exist within reality, please state it plainly. If you're just going to be facetious because you can't actually defend your argument, then don't waste our mutual time. Neither one of us is immortal.

dislekcia wrote:Beginner players who keep dying need that disappointment to start playing the game differently. If they never died, never lost their dungeon progress suddenly, why would they learn?

I absolutely agree with you. And I don't understand why this post has become so huge - it may be all of anger of beginner players. But now I'm enlightened and see no use of continuing this post.The game is hard - I play it from time to time - not for 8 hours without a break - but for an hour - then i die - then I rest, sometimes rethink my strategy and after some time - play another hour, then die, rest, play another hour and so on by circle - I think it's the way game should be played.Game as is it is is near perfect - Developers made a great job!

Robotrek1000 wrote:I absolutely agree with you. And I don't understand why this post has become so huge - it may be all of anger of beginner players. But now I'm enlightened and see no use of continuing this post.The game is hard - I play it from time to time - not for 8 hours without a break - but for an hour - then i die - then I rest, sometimes rethink my strategy and after some time - play another hour, then die, rest, play another hour and so on by circle - I think it's the way game should be played.Game as is it is is near perfect - Developers made a great job!